Booth v Otis Elevator Co

Booth v Otis El. Co.2021 NY Slip Op 30273(U)

January 7, 2021Supreme Court, New York County

Docket Number: 158604/2017Judge: Alexander M. Tisch

Cases posted with a "30000" identifier, i.e., 2013 NY SlipOp 30001(U), are republished from various New York

State and local government sources, including the NewYork State Unified Court System's eCourts Service.

This opinion is uncorrected and not selected for officialpublication.

INDEX NO. 158604/2017

NYSCEF DOC. NO. 221 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/29/2021

1 of 18

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK NEW YORK COUNTY

PRESENT: HON. ALEXANDER M. TISCH PART IAS MOTION 18EFM

Justice

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------X PATRICIA BOOTH, JOHN BOOTH.

Plaintiff,

-v-

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, TRIBORO ELEVATOR CONSULTANTS LLC,MEMORIAL SLOAN-KETTERING CANCER CENTER

Defendant.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------X

INDEX NO. 158604/2017

0912812020, 09/28/2020,

MOTION DATE 09/28/2020

MOTION SEQ. NO. 003 004 005

DECISION + ORDER ON MOTION

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 003) 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 131, 132, 133, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 175, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183

were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 004) 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87. 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94,95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 129, 130, 134, 135, 136, 156, 157, 158. 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173. 174, 176, 177, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188

were read on this motion to/for JUDGMENT-SUMMARY

The following e-filed documents, listed by NYSCEF document number (Motion 005) 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200,201,202,203,204,205,206,207,208,209

were read on this motion to/for MISCELLANEOUS

Upon the foregoing papers, Defendant Otis Elevator Company (Otis) moves for summary

judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims brought against it (motion sequence no.

003) .. Defendant Memorial Sloane-Kettering Cancer Center (MSKCC) moves for summary

judgment dismissing the complaint and cross claims brought against it (motion sequence no.

004). Defendant Otis moves for an order striking, in part or in whole, the affidavit of non-party

Kristen Lescinsky (motion sequence no. 005).

158604/2017 BOOTH, PATRICIA A vs. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY Motion No. 003 004 005

Page 1of18

[* 1]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


2 of 18

In the complaint, plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Patricia A. Booth (Ms. Booth) sustained

serious injuries as a result of her encountering closing elevator doors which resulted in her fall.

This incident occurred on July 28, 2017 at MSKCC, located at 1276 York Avenue in the County,

City and State of New York. As for the cause of her injuries, plaintiffs allege that defendants

were liable due to negligence on the part of MSKCC, and negligence and strict liability (design

and/or manufacturing defect) on the part of Otis. Plaintiff John M. Booth (Mr. Booth) is suing

defendants for loss of consortium.

SUMMARY OF FACTS

The complaint alleges as follows: On July 28, 2017, Ms. Booth and her daughter Kristin

Lescinsky had visited Mr. Booth at MSKCC. Mr. Booth was a patient at MSKCC at the time.

The incident occurred when Ms. Booth and Lescinsky were leaving the hospital. After

Lescinsky entered an elevator, she held the "Door Open" elevator button on the elevator panel

with her left hand and the elevator door with her right hand in order to allow her mother to enter

after her. While entering the elevator, Ms. Booth, who walked with a cane, was contacted by

closing elevator doors, which re-opened upon contact with her shoulders. Thereafter, she fell

backwards outside the elevator. The intervention of another person prevented her from hitting

the floor headfirst.

Among plaintiffs' arguments for liability are Otis, as the manufacturer of the elevator, is

liable for having defective equipment at the time of the incident; and MSKCC is liable for

negligence in failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition, and in failing to

repair and/or warn others of a defective elevator. Both defendants are liable for common-law

negligence.

Defendants filed cross claims against each other based on indemnification and/or


Page 2of18

[* 2]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


3 of 18

contribution.

Motion Sequence Nos. 3 and 5

Otis moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and MSKCC's cross claims,

based on the lack of any issues of fact pertaining to liability. Otis contends that the elevator that

it manufactured and sold to MSKCC was not defective or dangerous at the time of the incident.

Alternatively, as contracted with MSKCC to maintain the subject elevator, Otis did not create a

defect in the elevator or had notice, actual or constructive, of any defect in the elevator prior to

the incident. Since it claims not to be liable to plaintiffs, Otis seeks the dismissal of cross claims

from MSKCC.

As evidence, Otis submits as follows: the deposition testimony of Ms. Booth; the

deposition testimony of Mr. Booth; the deposition testimony ofnonparty Lescinsky; the

deposition testimony of Otis employee, Danny Smith; the deposition testimony of MSKCC

Employee, Fernando Vasquez; the records of elevator callbacks, services and maintenance for a

30-day period prior to the incident; the deposition testimony of Otis employee, Glen Spence; a

copy of the elevator video and stills from the video; and the affidavit of Gregory DeCola, an

expert witness who investigated the elevator after the incident.

In its affirmation in support of summary judgment, Otis discusses the relevant aspects of

the subject elevator in order to assert that the elevator was, at all times, code compliant. The

Lambada III Delectronic door re-opening device installed in the elevator provided 56 infrared

beams in its 2D crossbeam feature, which was 23 times more than the two beams required under

the applicable codes, statutes and regulations in effect at the time of the incident. Otis discusses

the installation of the elevator and its component parts, which occurred in 2009-2010, before the

time of the incident. According to Otis, between the time of the installation to the time of the


Page 3of18

[* 3]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


4 of 18

incident, there had been no complaints about the elevator doors or the electronic door reopening

device.

Otis contends that another device in the elevator, the 30 feature, was optional and not

required by code and statute, and not subject to any violation. Otis argues that the device was

not activated at the time of the incident and had no relevance to the functioning of the elevator.

The deposition of Ms. Booth indicates that she had no clear recollection of the incident

and the consequences of which she endured. Ms. Booth asserts that she was not aware of any

complaint about the functioning of the elevator prior to the incident. She had visited the hospital

regularly to see Mr. Booth and had no problems with elevators there, particularly the subject

elevator. Mr. Booth's deposition testimony, which concerned his time as a patient at the

hospital, also asserts no problems related to the subject elevator.

Lescinsky's deposition is the clearest testimony regarding the incident. She

testifies that she had no awareness of any prior problems with the particular elevator. She states

the events leading up to her mother's fall, as alleged in the complaint. She states that after

entering the elevator, she pressed the door open button with her left hand while holding the

elevator door with her right hand. She concludes that upon contact with Ms. Booth, the elevator

doors re-opened and Ms. Booth reacted by falling backwards outside of the elevator.

Danny Smith, a mechanic employed by Otis, was deposed. Smith asserts that Otis

provided service mechanics on site at MSKCC from Monday through Friday from 7:00 am to

midnight, and mechanics were available on call on weekends and after midnight. He performed

routine maintenance of the elevators there, including the subject elevator. His last performance

was on July 21, 2017, three days prior to the incident. He testifies that he found no problems

with the subject elevator, including the electronic door detector. Another Otis mechanic, Glen


Page 4of18

[* 4]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


5 of 18

Spence testified as to his work at MSKCC. Upon his regular maintenance and inspection work,

Spence stated that he found no defects in the subject elevator and claimed not to have been aware

of any complaint related to the door opening device prior to the incident.

Fernando Vasquez, designated as the "Supervisor of Elevator Operations" for MSKCC,

testified as to his involvement with the incident. Vasquez discussed his knowledge of elevator

sensors and their place in the hospital. He testified that he was not aware of any problems with

the sensors in any of the MSKCC elevators. He observed that elevator doors would reopen if

anything broke the beam of the sensors between the car doors.

Vasquez referred to an ongoing maintenance agreement between the two defendants.

Upon being notified of the incident, he told Spence to take the subject elevator out of service for

inspection. After Spence conducted the inspection, he notified Vasquez that the elevator was

acting properly. Vasquez subsequently placed the elevator back in service. On the following

Monday, July 31, 20 I 7, Vasquez told Smith to conduct specific tests on the subject elevator to

determine its "torque force." As a result, Smith assured Vasquez of the proper functioning of that

elevator upon the conclusion of the tests.

Otis submits a copy of a surveillance video produced by a camera mounted in the subject

elevator. About 20 seconds of the incident are shown. The video contains a time stamp on the

bottom right hand comer. There are also stills derived from the video which provide the

sequence of Lescinsky and Ms. Booth entering the subject elevator.

In sum, Ms. Booth was walking slowly using a cane in her left hand as she approached

the subject elevator. Lescinsky anticipat~d that the elevator doors may begin to close and

blocked the beam matrix created by the sensors as she entered. There were two sets of doors,

two hoistway doors attached to the building and two car doors attached to the elevator.


Page 5of18

[* 5]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


6 of 18

Lescinsky then entered the elevator and pushed a button on the panel. She testified that she

pressed the Door Open button, although Otis argues that she pressed the first-floor button, which

would cause the elevator doors to close. As she pressed the button, the doors began to close, and

the hoistway doors came into contact with Ms. Booth before she crossed the threshold and broke

the beam matrix. As she lost her balance and tried to catch herself, Ms. Booth's arm crossed the

threshold between the hoistway and the car doors, interrupting the matrix and causing the car

doors to reopen. No other part of Ms. Booth's body apparently interrupted the beam matrix prior

to her arm making contact. Otis contends that since the car doors automatically changed

direction and reopened upon Ms. Booth's contact with the matrix, the sensors in the elevator

were working properly.

Otis submits an affidavit from its expert Gregory DeCola, an Elevator Agency Director

for the New York City Department of Buildings. DeCola affirms that he reviewed and examined

the evidence submitted by the parties, including the video. He also examined the subject

elevator ?n behalf of defendants on February 7, 2019. In his affidavit, he discusses the Lambda

20 system in detail, its components and its functioning as a door detection device. He avers that

the system in the subject elevator is code compliant, specifically in compliance with the

standards of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. DeCola also avers that there was no

evidence of a defect prior to the incident, based on the documentary evidence of elevator

maintenance and inspections compiled over a year from the date of the incident.

DeCola also discusses the 30 system, which was inactivated at the time of the incident.

He concludes that the arguments that\the inactivation of the system could have contributed to the

incident are baseless speculation. Based on the video, he concludes that the sensors worked

(

158604/2017 BOOTH, PATRICIA A vs. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY Motion No. 003 004 005 ·

Page 6of18

[* 6]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


7 of 18

properly and that it was Lescinsky's conduct on the subject elevator that contributed to the

incident.

Otis argues that based on the evidence, there is no evidence of defects with respect to the

subject elevator and its components as they complied with the standard codes and guidelines.

Otis claims that it had no actual or constructive notice of any defects prior to the incident based

on the documentary evidence, the depositions and the affirmations of various individuals

involved with the maintenance of the subject elevator. Otis also asserts that the elevator did not

malfunction at the time of the incident, and there was no defective condition. Thus, Otis seeks

dismissal based on summary judgment grounds. Otis also contends that since it is not liable to

plaintiffs, it seeks the dismissal of MSKCC's cross claims brought against it.

MSKCC submits a partial opposition to this motion. MSKCC discusses its maintenance

agreement with Otis, in effect at the time of the incident. MSKCC states that the agreement

holds that Otis assumes the exclusive maintenance of the subject elevator. While MSKCC is

also moving for summary judgment/dismissal from this action, it contends that its cross claims

have merit and should not be dismissed. MSKCC argues that, in its motion papers, Otis did not

address the legal basis for dismissal of the cross claims. Based on the terms of the agreement,

Otis is obligated to procure insurance on MSKCC's behalf, and to indemnify and hold harmless

MSKCC from any damages or liability that arises out of Otis's contractual obligations. MSKCC

argues that Otis is responsible for the maintenance and repair of MSKCC' s elevators, including

the subject elevator. Unless Otis is found not liable for the negligence alleged in the complaint,

MSKCC contends that it is entitled to maintain its cross claims against Otis.


Page 7of18

[* 7]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


8 of 18

Plaintiffs oppose the motion and submit an affidavit from Lescinsky and an affidavit

from their expert witness, Richard Sena, owner of Murray and Sena, LLC, a, company

specializing in vertical transportation consultation.

Plaintiffs' opposition raises a number of issues that they claim are material issues of fact:

(a) did the subject elevator start to close, despite Lescinsky's pressing the Door Open button on

the elevator panel?; (b) did Ms. Booth's body and torso break the 2D beam which allegedly

triggered the reopening of the doors?; (c) did the 3D system, as deactivated, contribute to the

incident?; ( d) was the instrumentality that failed to trigger a reversal of the doors as Ms. Booth

entered the elevator subject to res ipsa loquitor?; and, ( e) did the failure of Otis to notify the New

York City Department of Buildings of the incident create an inference of negligence?'

Lescinsky reasserts her eyewitness story and makes a change, explaining that she held the

Door Open button with her right hand, instead of her left hand. She also states that she watched

the video. She does not address defendants' argument that she pressed a different button on the

panel, or that Ms. Booth made contact with the beam with her hand. In his affidavit, Sena states

that he examined the evidence, witnessed the video and examined the subject elevator with

DeCola on February 7, 2019. He raises issues as to the adequacy of the 2D system at the time of

the incident. He also discusses the 30 system, then inactivated, concluding that there is an issue

as to whether it should have been operative at the time. Sena asserts that Otis should have been

aware of potential defects prior to the incident.

Plaintiffs also raise the doctrine of res ipsa loquitor, arguing that an inference of

negligence could be found from this incident. This would apparently be based on factors like the

nature of the incident, specifically a kind that does not occur in the absence of negligence.

Plaintiffs contend that the Court should consider the application of the doctrine to this case.


Page 8of18

[* 8]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


9 of 18

In reply to MSKCC's opposition, Otis notes that the indemnification provision in the

maintenance agreement is only triggered where such claims brought against MSKCC are not a

result of MSKCC's acts or omissions. Otis contends that in its motion, it has demonstrated that

the incident was not caused by Otis's conduct, and that Otis did not perform any acts or

omissions which resulted in any defective or dangerous condition. Otis also argues that in the

aforesaid agreement, Otis did not assume exclusive authority over the maintenance of the

elevators, and that MSKCC reserved some of the authority. Otis mentions that it accepted

MSKCC'S tender under a reservation of rights provision. Based on these factors, Otis argues )

that MSKCC is not entitled to its cross claims for indemnification/contribution.

Otis replies to plaintiffs with evidence that includes a reply affidavit from DeCola. Otis

contends that Lescinsky's affidavit and deposition testimony should be disregarded in their

entirety. (Otis subsequently moved for the striking of her affidavit, which is motion sequence no.

005, the matter which will be discussed later in this section). Otis argues that Lescinsky's

affidavit in opposition to this motion ?ontradicts the sworn testimony she gave an~ is essentially

a self-serving and inaccurate presentation of the facts. Otis contrasts her evidence with the video

and screen prints, which it considers to be more accurate.

Otis contends that Sena's expert affidavit is speculative, conclusory and insufficient to

raise a triable issue of fact. According to Otis, Sena: relied on plaintiffs' interpretation of the

Video; failed to contradict its position that the subject elevator was code compliant; and failed to

show how the activation of the 3D system would have averted the incident.

Otis argues that res ipsa loquitor would not be applicable in this case because Otis could

not have had exclusive control of the subject elevator, as passengers would have some control

over the operation of the elevator.


Page 9of18

[* 9]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


10 of 18

Otis argues that it was under no duty to comply with the New York City Department of

Buildings, pursuant to the Building Code, because it is not the owner or manager of the subject

elevator. The code provisions cited by plaintiffs involve reporting certain incidents to the proper

City authorities after their occurrence. Otis contends that even if it was under such a duty, the

failure to comply would not constitute any evidence or inference of negligence.

After receiving opposition to its summary judgment motion, Otis filed a second motion

against plaintiffs, a motion to strike, in part or in whole, Lescinsky's affidavit in opposition to

Otis's motion for summary judgment. Otis argues that the affidavit is materially inconsistent

with Lescinsky's deposition testimony, and that the affidavit is cumulative, based on hearsay,

inflammatory and prejudicial.

Otis cites the differences between the deposition testimony and the subsequent affidavit.

In her deposition testimony, Lescinsky testified that upon entering the subject elevator, she

placed her right hand over the elevator doors to block them while pressing the Door Open button

on the panel with her left hand. In the affidavit, Lescinsky states that she pushed the Door Open

button with her right hand. Otis also claims Lescinsky affirmed that the car doors continued to

close after Ms. Booth made contact with the matrix beam in the elevator; Lescinsky then held the

car doors back to their fully open position. Referring to the video, Otis contends that Lescinsky

did not press the Door Open button and did not hold the doors open. Based on the video, Otis

argues that the doors automatically reopened upon Ms. Booth's contact with the beam. Otis thus

seekS to the strike the affidavit.

In opposition to the motion, plaintiffs argue that this is a self-serving attempt to seek

• relief that is duplicative of the summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs argue that this should not

be permitted as it is contrary to procedural law. They also argue that the affidavit is very


Page 10of18

[* 10]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


11 of 18

/

important because Lescinsky is the primary witness in this action and her affidavit raises issues

of fact pertaining to Otis's alleged liability. Plaintiffs contend that Otis raises the issue of

credibility, a matter that is usually a jury issue.

In reply, Otis denies that this current motion is duplicative of the summary judgment

motion. Otis reaffirms its position that the affidavit is prejudicial and insufficient to raise any

material issues of fact.

The Court shall determine the motion to strike before deciding the motion for summary

judgment. Otis argues that this motion is valid because an affidavit that materially contradicts a

prior sworn deposition should not be considered as evidence by the court (see Perez v Mekulovic,-

13 AD3d 158, 158-159 (1 51 Dept 2004]). Otis also contends that the affidavit contradicts the

video, is prejudicial and cumulative, and lacks probative value.

Plaintiffs contend that Otis is simply restating its summary judgment motion. Plaintiffs

also contend that the affidavit has merit, raises issues of fact and Otis's motion involves a

witness's credibility, usually a matter that is decided by a jury (see LeBlanc v Skinner, 103 AD3d

202, 212 [2d Dept 2012]).

Upon examining the video, Lescinsky's deposition testimony and her affidavit, the Court

concludes that the affidavit is not materially inconsistent with the deposition. Lescinsky affirms

almost everything that she previously testified about. In the affirmation, she states that she used

her other hand to press the Door Open button. She continues to deny pressing the first

floor button, a major issue here. Upon examining the video, one sees proof that she did not hold

the elevator doors the way she said she did. The video also shows that Ms. Booth's hand

connected with the beam, causing the doors to reopen, while her upper body and head were

directed away from the entrance to the elevator.


\

Page 11of18

'-.

[* 11]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


12 of 18

As for the buttons, the Court cannot confirm whether Lescinsky pressed the Door Open

button or the first floor button in the video. This is an underlying issue and Lescinsky is the

primary eyewitness in this case. For this reason, the Court will not grant this motion, but will

still consider summary judgment with respect to Otis's prior motion.

"It is axiomatic that summary judgment is a drastic remedy and should not be granted

where there is any doubt as to the existence of factual issues" (Birnbaum v Hyman, 43 AD3d

374, 375 [1st Dept 2007]). "The substantive law governing a case dictates what facts are

material, and ' [ o ]nly disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the

governing law will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment "' (People v Grasso, 50

AD3d 535, 545 [1st Dept 2008] [citation and quotation marks omitted]. "To prevail on a

summary judgment motion, the moving party must provide evidentiary proof, in admissible

form sufficient to warrant the direction of summary judgment in his or her favor" (Kershaw v

Hospital for Special Surgery, 114 AD3d 75, 81 [1st Dept 2013]). "Once this burden is met, the

burden shifts to the opposing party to submit proof in admissible form sufficient to create a

question of fact requiring a trial" (id. at 82).

"A plaintiff alleging injury by a dangerous condition must show that defendant either

created the condition, or failed to remedy it, despite actual or constructive notice thereof"

(Haseley v Abels, 84 AD3d 480, 482 [1sDept2011] [internal citation omitted].

To prove negligence, plaintiff must establish a duty on defendant's part, a breach of that

duty, and the breach as the proximate cause of injury to plaintiff (see Elmaliach v Bank of China

Ltd., 110AD3d 192, 199[I51 Dept2013]).

"A party injured as a result of a defective product may seek relief against the product

manufacturer or others in the distribution chain if the defect was a substantial factor in causing


Page 12of18

[* 12]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


13 of 18

the injury. 'A product may be defective when it contains a manufacturing flaw, is defectively

designed or is not accompanied by adequate warnings for the use of the product"' (Speller v

Sears, Roebuck, & Co., 100 NY2d 38, 41 [2003]).

Plaintiffs' negligence claim against Otis consists of allegations of a defective elevator or

component in the elevator which contributed to Ms. Booth's injury. The debate centers on the

aforesaid 20 system in the subject elevator. In its summary judgment motion, Otis provided an

explanation of this system, how it was code compliant at the time of the incident, and that

defendants had not received any complaints about the system or the elevator doors regarding the

subject elevator prior to the incident. For this, Otis submitted documentary evidence of various

inspections of the elevator by its employees over a lengthy period of time, and reports and

records indicating a lack of complaints about the 2D system. Otis also submitted deposition

testimony from its mechanics and a representative of MSKCC invo.lved with elevator

maintenance to demonstrate the lack of any indication of a defective condition prior to the

incident.

Otis submitted a copy of the surveillance video which showed the moment of the

incident, and an expert affidavit from a specialist which appears to confirm Otis's argument that

the system worked as it should have. The video shows Ms. Booth's hand contacting the beam

matrix of the sensor inside the elevator, triggering an automatic reaction in which the closing car

doors reversed and reopened. DeCola, the specialist, affirmed the response as proof of the

proper functioning of the 2D system.

Plaintiffs, in opposition, contend that issues of fact preclude dismissal of the negligence

claim. There is the argument that Lescinsky's pushing the Door Open button did not prevent the

closing of the doors; that the deactivation of the 3D system, though claimed to be optional, could


Page 13of18

[* 13]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


14 of 18

have contributed to the incident, and that an inference of res ipsa loquitor could arise from the

circumstances alleged by plaintiffs.

With respect to the 3D system, the Court concludes that since the system had been

deactivated for a considerable length of time, any effort to ascertain its potential effectiveness

remains speculative at most. The proof of the proper functioning of the 2D system has been

shown here, and whether the 30 system could have been effective is not relevant.

Res ipsa loquitor is a doctrine which allows an inference of negligence to be drawn from

circumstances of the occurrence when plaintiff can establish that (a) the event is of a kind which

"ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence", (b) it is "caused by an agency or

instrumentality within the exclusive control of the defendant," and (c) it was not "due to [a]

voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff' (Dermatossian v New York City Tr.

Auth., 67 NY2d 219, 226 (1986]).

The Court finds that this doctrine would not be applicable here, where it is apparent that

Otis does not have exclusive control over the subject elevator, particularly at the time of the

incident. It is obvious that a passenger in such an instrumentality could exert some control or

could have brought about an incident independent of defendant's own acts.

There is an issue as to Lescinsky's eyewitness evidence. The parties dispute over the

button that she pressed after entering the subject elevator. Had she pressed the first-floor button,

as asserted by Otis, it was inevitable that the elevator doors would close. Had she pressed the

Door Open button, then the doors should not have closed, regardless of the effectiveness of the

20 system.

The Court finds that despite this issue, Otis is entitled to the dismissal of the negligence

claim on the ground of lack of notice, actual or constructive, of any defective condition prior to


Page 14of18

[* 14]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


15 of 18

the ·incident.

As for the claim that Otis is allegedly in violation of section 3012.1 of the New York City

Building Code and section 27-1006 of the New York City Administrative Code, which concerns

reporting accidents to City authorities, the Court finds that these provisions apply to the owner or

manager of the premises (elevator), which is not Otis, but MSKCC. Moreover, violations of the

codes are not indicative of negligence, as alleged here.

The strict liability claim brought against Otis differs somewhat from the negligence

claim. It cannot be concluded that strict tort liability imposes liability without fault, albeit

plaintiff in such a case need not prove negligence. As the Court stated earlier, strict liability

requires proof that the product was defective when it left the hands of the manufacturer, whether

the defect consisted of a mistake in manufacturing, a design defect, or the absence or inadequacy

of warnings as to the use of the product (see Rosado v Proctor & Schwartz, Inc., 106 AD2d 27,

30 [1st Dept 1984 ], ajfd 61 NY2d 21 [ 1985]).

While plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the components of the subject elevator were

defective, the issue of which elevator button was pressed by Lescinsky remains unresolved. The

Court finds that this issue must be decided before this claim can be dismissed.

Since the negligence claim against Otis has been dismissed, the Court shall dismiss

MSKCC's cross claims in indemnification/contribution, as they are based on negligence. Motion

Sequence No. 4

MSKCC moves for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and Otis's cross claims

against it. MSKCC is allegedly liable for negligence in failing to maintain reasonably safe '\

premises, and for operating a defective elevator which resulted in the serious injuries suffered by

Ms. Booth. In its motion, MSKCC submits almost the same evidence that Otis submitted ,


Page 15of18

[* 15]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


16 of 18

including the same deposition testimony, documentary evidence, the surveillance video and party

affidavits. The purpose of the evidence is to demonstrate that MSKCC maintained the premises

in a reasonably safe condition, that the subject elevator, which is in its possession, was not

defective, and even if it was defective, MSKCC had no prior notice, actual and constructive, of

any defects.

MSKCC submits an expert affidavit from its own expert, William Meyer, associated with

Affiliated Engineering Laboratories, Inc., attesting to examining the evidence submitted by the

parties and to inspecting the subject elevator on June 26, 2019. His affidavit provides a detailed

explanation of the 2D system and an assessment of the incident. His conclusions are similar to

those of Otis'. s expert, DeCola. Meyer asserts that the 2D system was functioning properly at the

time of the incident. He also denies that the deactivation of the 3D system had any effect on the

incident. He is critical of plaintiffs' expert, Sena, in that regard. Meyer concludes that MSKCC

had no prior notice of any complaints with respect to the subject elevator, that all records

indicate a normally functioning elevator, and that the 2D system was not in violation of any code

or statute.

MSKCC seeks dismissal of the complaint based on the evidence. MSKCC also seeks

dismissal of Otis's cross claims based on a lack of liability.

In partial opposition, Otis argues against the dismissal of its cross claims, using similar

arguments that MSKCC used in opposing the dismissal of its cross claims. In opposition,

plaintiffs submit the same affidavits from Lescinsky and Sena that were used against Otis to raise

the same arguments, including the issue as to the inactivation of the 3D system, the application

of res ipsa loquitor, and the Building Code violations.


Page 16of18

[* 16]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


17 of 18

In negligence actions, a building owner has a duty to maintain its premises in a

reasonably safe condition (see Peralta v Henriquez, 100 NY2d 139, 144 [2003]). MSKCC has

provided sufficient admissible evidence that it did not create or allow a defective condition on

the subject elevator. Moreover, the evidence indicates that the 2D system, in effect at the time of

the incident; worked properly, as the video shows Ms. Booth's hand contacting the matrix of the

2D system and the car doors reopening as a result. Alternatively, MSKCC has shown that it had

no prior notice of a defect.

With respect to res ipsa loquitor, the Court finds this doctrine is not applicable because

despite its ownership of the subject elevator, MSKCC did not have exclusive control over it, as

passengers could have some control over the mechanism. Regarding the Building Code

violations, although MSKCC .is the owner and manager of the subject elevator, even if it was in

violation; this would not be indicative of negligence, since it occurred after the incident.

This Court finds MSKCC is not liable for negligence, and the motion to dismiss the

complaint is granted. The cross claims brought against it by Otis are also dismissed, as they are

based on negligence.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Otis Elevator Company's motion for

summary judgment (motion sequence no. 3) is granted as to the negligence cause of action in the

complaint and the cross claims, which are dismissed, and is otherwise denied; and it is further

ORDERED that defendant Memorial Sloane-Kettering Cancer Center's motion for

summary judgment (motion sequence no. 4) is granted and the complaint and cross claims are

dismissed with costs and disbursements to defendant as taxed by the Clerk upon the submission

of an appropriate bill of osts; and it is further

ORDERED that the Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly; and it is further

15860412017 BOOTH, PATRICIA A vs. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY Motion No. 003 004 005

Page 17of18

[* 17]

INDEX NO. 158604/2017


18 of 18

ORDERED that defendant Otis Elevator Company's motion to strike the affidavit of

non-party Kristen Lescinsky is denied (motion sequence no. S); and it is further

ORDERED that the action is severed and continues as against Otis Elevator Company.

This constitutes the decision and order of the Court.

117/2021 DATE

CHECK ONE:

APPLICATION:

CHECK IF APPROPRIATE: ~ CASE DISPOSED

GRANTED D DENIED

SETTLE ORDER

INCLUDES TRANSFER/REASSIGN

158604/2017 BOOTH, PATRICIA A vs. OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY u,.,..i,.,.n IJ""" nn'"l nnA nni:

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION

GRANTED IN PART

SUBMIT ORDER

FIDUCIARY APPOINTMENT

(

D OTHER

D REFERENCE

Page 18of18

[* 18]

Documents

Booth v Otis Elevator Co